I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

I kiss the feet of Christ on the crucifix on my rosary before and after I finish prayer.
What is so terribly idolatrous about this?
I also bow my head at the sign of the cross and the name Of Christ.
Is this “name worship?”
Why are you ascribing idolatry to an action which has no intention of idolatry?


The Bible clearly has 3 parts to the commandment :
1) don’t make idols
2) or likeness of anything on earth or as in heaven
3) don’t worship them

Doesn’t matter if you don’t venerate them. You’re clearly still breaking the 2nd part of the commandment, by your own standards. It’s impossible to get away from this

 

I didn’t say god depended on anything.
But why do you take the opinion it’s crazy to say councils are infallible, when you yourself believe a collection of books is infallible?
None of the ecumenical councils contradict each other.
If you think slight things which appear to be contradictions are contradictions without trying to understand, you’re doing the same thing atheists do to the Bible. Go read any of Bart erhmans books on biblical contradictions, and he absolutely does make it seem like there’s a million. Except you as a Christian try to harmonize the text together and not tear it apart, as you should. And to understand it in the proper context.
False councils don’t contradict anything. That’s like saying apocrypha written in Hebrew contradicts the biblical canon. There’s not a single iconoclast apostolic church, no one ended up accepting the robber council.
Not to mention the pope never approved it. All 7 councils were approved by the pope.

 

I don’t think James was imposing Jewish laws on the gentiles, I think it was the Jews that were with him.
I do not accept that any of the apostles ever preached a false gospel or doctrine.

 

No? We are not Puritans? We don't believe that every likeness is evil? (These are millenial uptalk question marks. They are definitive statements to check to see if you understand.) The idea is that we don't practice piety to the images themselves. It says don't make an idol for yourself of anything on earth as in heaven and do not bow to them nor worship them. Many of us think that kissing statues or pictures of Mary is pushing the limit, and ergo, we do not make it a mandatory practice in our church.

 

I know member of the RCC like to make sport of Protestants on Sola Scriptura, however this is not a game to play with thought out Anglicans. Well schooled in Richard Hooker, you will find that we understand that scripture itself and it's understanding is a key lynchpin in our tradition, and we understand it within that tradition, and we measure that which purports to be tradition by it. Scripture, Tradition and Reason are bread and butter for Anglicans.

In reality I would want to ask what you mean when you ask about the Bible being infallible. As Anglicans we do proclaim that all that is required of one to be saved may be found in Holy Scripture. I would go so far as to say that the Bible is True. I would not go so far as to to say that the Bible is historical truth. I sense that some parts of scripture are not history, yet that does not deny those parts from the power to carry truth.

 

*Shrug* Tell that to the Copts or the Assyrians.

That's what we're trying to do here with @Botolph and the Wisdom of Solomon. Contextualize. As far as we can tell, that's why the Reformation happened: Rome's eisegesis and bad hermeneutics.

Then how do you tell the true councils from the false? The Pope? Here goes the circular reasoning.

Irrelevant again.

a) nvm
b) You're a Catholic and believe that there is only one Apostolic church, i.e., the Roman one.
c) The Anglicans are not iconoclastic.
'Does not kiss Mary's picture' does not equal 'breaks Mary's picture'.

What about the remaining of the 21 'ecumenical' councils? The Byzantines certainly don't buy those.

 

Well I’m not making sport of anything. In my other posts I clearly said some parts of the Bible contain historical discrepancies.
However, I do believe the parts of the Bible that claim very clearly to be historical are historical. This doesn’t mean there aren’t errors.
But when I say the Bible is infallible, I mean doctrinally infallible.
I thought this was sort of basic for most orthodox Christians?
I believe every single doctrinal statement in the Bible is infallible, and I’m not a Protestant.
does the Anglican Church not affirm the doctrinal infallibility of the scriptures?

 

How do you affirm the canon of scripture?

 

I’ve just gone through and read some of it.
It’s a lot of “well so and so didn’t mention the council was ecumenical so they didn’t believe it was ecumenical.”
Just so you realize how much politics purely fueled this issue, and you don’t think the franks or gallicans or even the pope to be some sort of iconoclast just because they didn’t consider the council ecumenical right away:

“The council also tested the delicate alliance linking Aachen and Rome,88 since Charlemagne rejected its decisions and asked Theodulf of Orleans (750–821) to write a formal refutation of its teachings (i.e., the Liber Carolini or the Opus Caroli Regis).89 Charlemagne’s objections were not only theological, but also ecclesiological—that is, the council had presumed to call itself ecumenical despite the conspicuous absence of any Frankish representatives. As for Hadrian, he was of two minds regarding the council—on one hand he fully accepted its teaching on icons and his legates had approved its decisions, but on the other he could not give it his wholehearted endorsement since it did not address (as he had earlier demanded) his jurisdiction in Illyricum and Sicily.90 Handling this situation required a certain degree of flexibility, which was, fortunately for Hadrian, a characteristic he happily possessed.”

So it’s ridiculous to say “well the pope didn’t mention it was ecumenical in this one letter,” as some sort of proof it wasn’t later accepted as ecumenical.
None of the sources in that book I can verify because a lot of them I just can’t find the books or they’re in french, I can’t read French.
The book makes it extremely difficult to find sources. When citing a popes letter they don’t actually site the letter, they site some French book that mentions the letter.
Not to mention I’ve never heard these arguments before presented by a reputable historian.
Saying that the franks didn’t accept the council without accounting for the major political reasons is poor scholarship.
Also the church as a whole eventually accepted it. It’s like telling me, well the arians didn’t accept the council of Nicaea. So what?

 

The Old Testament was more or less established and the New Testament as well. I didn't say I doubted every council's decisions.
edit: The anglicans affirm the first four councils, as far as I am aware.

 

That's why I don't believe the ecclesiologies of any of your self-styled 'apostolic' churches.

 

This is literally a genetic fallacy, ma'am.

We believe ourselves to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we do not accept it.

 

Anyway, I'll check this thread again later. I have too much homework. At some point I just have to ask God to point me in the right direction; God bless us all.

 

Why do RCs keep Jesus Christ on the cross (as a crucifix), when Jesus was taken off the cross, buried, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven? He's no longer on the cross. The RCC perpetuates and continues His sacrifice in every mass, even though Christ said "It is finished" and He has sat down at the Father's right hand.

Yes, kissing a figurine in reverence smacks of idolatry to me. It wouldn't be any different to me if it were a figurine of Mary or some saint instead of Jesus. After all, the figurine is not the person, so you're not kissing the feet of Jesus. You're paying reverence to an icon.

 

This is a misreading of the fathers, just like when evangelicals read tertullian saying the eucharist is the form of the body of christ and believe that it means Zwinglian memorialism.
First of all, that writing of St Chrysostom is probably spurious. I cant find it anywhere, i just found this :https://www.jstor.org/stable/262851
article which says it is regarded as forgery.
Also, when the fathers say anything, you must take the full corpus of their writings in order to interpret what they say, not just one quote.

St. Chrysostom says:
"or if one would not inconsiderately receive a king — (why say I a king? Nay were it but a royal robe, one would not inconsiderately touch it with unclean hands— though he should be in solitude, though alone, though no man were at hand: and yet the robe is nought but certain threads spun by worms: and if you admire the dye, this too is the blood of a dead fish; nevertheless, one would not choose to venture on it with polluted hands: I say now, if even a man's garment be what one would not venture inconsiderately to touch, what shall we say of the Body of Him Who is God over all, spotless, pure, associate with the Divine Nature, the Body whereby we are, and live; whereby the gates of hell were broken down and the sanctuaries of heaven opened? How shall we receive this with so great insolence? Let us not, I pray you, let us not slay ourselves by our irreverence, but with all awfulness and purity draw near to It; and when you see It set before you, say thou to yourself, Because of this Body am I no longer earth and ashes, no longer a prisoner, but free: because of this I hope for heaven, and to receive the good things therein, immortal life, the portion of angels, converse with Christ; this Body, nailed and scourged, was more than death could stand against; this Body the very sun saw sacrificed, and turned aside his beams; for this both the veil was rent in that moment, and rocks were burst asunder, and all the earth was shaken. This is even that Body, the blood-stained, the pierced, and that out of which gushed the saving fountains, the one of blood, the other of water, for all the world."

"This Body has He given to us both to hold and to eat; a thing appropriate to intense love. For those whom we kiss vehemently, we oft-times even bite with our teeth. Wherefore also Job, indicating the love of his servants towards him, said, that they ofttimes, out of their great affection towards him, said, Oh! That we were filled with his flesh! Job 31:31 Even so Christ has given to us to be filled with His flesh, drawing us on to greater love."

"When with this sacrifice we depart into the outer world, with much confidence we shall tread the sacred threshold, fenced round on every side as with a kind of golden armor.

And why speak I of the world to come? Since here this mystery makes earth become to you a heaven. Open only for once the gates of heaven and look in; nay, rather not of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens; and then you will behold what I have been speaking of. For what is there most precious of all, this will I show you lying upon the earth. For as in royal palaces, what is most glorious of all is not walls, nor golden roofs, but the person of the king sitting on the throne; so likewise in heaven the Body of the King. But this, you are now permitted to see upon earth. For it is not angels, nor archangels, nor heavens and heavens of heavens, that I show you, but the very Lord and Owner of these. Perceivest thou how that which is more precious than all things is seen by you on earth; and not seen only, but also touched; and not only touched, but likewise eaten; and after receiving It you go home?"

(Homily 24 on 1 Corinthians 10:23-24)

I think its pretty obvious he believes the eucharist actually is changed into the very jesus christ, whom we can hold and bite with our teeth. Its pretty obvious he believed there was a change. Not to mention your quote is most likely spurious.


Theodoret has dialogue between a monophysite and the orthodox orthodoxus .

This is what it says in full context:


"Eran.— What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?

Orth.— It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.

Eran.— Let your answer be put enigmatically.

Orth.— Food of grain of such a sort.

Eran.— And how name we the other symbol?

Orth.— This name too is common, signifying species of drink.

Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?

Orth.— Christ's body and Christ's blood.

Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood?

Orth.— I do.

Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord's body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord."

So you see here he compares the incarnation, where christ still retains his divine nature undivided but not confused with the human nature, to the eucharist, where the bread still remains the nature of the bread, and he defines nature as being visible and tangible as before, meaning that just like christ did not mix his divine nature with his human, the bread doesnt mix with christ; it becomes the Body, yet the outward nature, the chemical structure of the molecules of the bread, its taste, smell and touch, remain the same.
This is precisely what the monophysite was claiming, which is why orthodoxus said what he did : "Eran.— You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord's body into another nature. Answer now to my questions."

He says they WORSHIP the eucharist, which you deny they do. This goes against your interpretation. The fathers cannot be cherry picked like this.

Its well known that the early church had golden doves where they reserved part of the eucharist, to symbolize the descent of the holy spirit at christs baptism. The monks also carried the eucharist around their necks, even in the english church. None of what youve said presents the patristic doctrine.
If you have issue with adoring the Blessed Sacrament, then you dont truly believe it IS the very Christ, else you would have no problem with it.

Here is also St. Augustine, testifying to the true doctrine of the Eucharist:

"In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.

You can see also St Chrysostom in the quote i showed says the eucharist is a sacrifice. Augustine says this too, he says it is "the most true sacrifice” (verissium sacrificium) that the priest offers (immolat) to God. (cf. City of God, 10, 20).
You cant offer the sacrifice of Christ if its just bread and no change occurred.

 

But when I say the Bible is infallible, I mean doctrinally infallible.

I don't actually find this a very helpful statement. It does not help me discern what is doctrine and what is not. Does the Bible support Monogamy or Polygamy? Most Christians would want to affirm Monogamy, and find some express statements to support that. However there are numbers of examples of Polygamy in the Old Testament, so perhaps it is a doctrinal neutral? I don't know.

The number one statement of the Anglican position is that there is nothing required of a person to believe unto salvation that is not to be found in Holy Scripture. I find that altogether a more useful statement.

Scripture in this setting is the Churches Book, and we read:

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.​

The Church is called to be true to scripture, as 'witness and keeper'.

Some of the things that challenge us in this day and age is to understand how we should understand the witness of scripture. Areas of human relationships and human sexuality and identity, coupled with the role and function of women within society and within the community of faith have been challenging for people to deal with, and all persons have understood themselves still bound in some sense as witness and keeper of holy writ.

I don't find the statement 'doctrinally infallible', without it being unpacked helpful or meaningful.

Icons and Stained Glass
I just thought I should add a side note here. People are not asked to look at icons, but rather to gaze through them as windows of heaven. They are not an end in themselves. The magnificent glass that attends many Church buildings reminds us of our purpose to let the light of Christ shine through us that we may give light to others. Neither of these things is an end in itself.

 

By whom was the new testament canon established? Can you be infallibly certain you have the right canon?

 

The problem is youre not God and you cant tell my intentions.
Lets say you see me in the night forcibly open someones window and enter their home. You may think i was sneaking in to rob them. Later you find out that i had actually recieved a call by my elderly mother's neighbor that he heard some weird sounds in her backyard and thought she might have fallen. Do you think God would judge me as breaking into a persons house to steal their things, when that wasnt my intention?

Lets also say you see me coming into work and bringing food to one of our co workers who came back from her wedding. Youd think i was being nice to her. But in my heart my intetion is to give her food so I can eventually be invited to her house to cook for her and seduce her husband. Would God judge this action of giving her food as righteous, despite the intetion in my heart?

The point im trying to make is you cant read peoples minds, you cant tell if what theyre doing is idolatry or not. But if im repeatedly telling you my onyl desire is to worship Christ himself, and i just kiss the crucifix to pay homage to Him and to His sacrifice, and in the hope of one day seeing Him in heaven, why do you still judge me as committing an idolatrous action even though thats not my intention, in fact the complete opposite?
If the crucifix is in my house and a fire starts, i have no issue with leaving it behind. I know its not Christ. The very definition of idolatry is worshipping something other than God. I do not worship the crucifix in the very least, its just an outward action to show my love for Christ, whose feet i cannot physically kiss at this moment. Why is such an action which only stems out of proper ordered love idolatry?
The material world isnt evil. Theres nothing wrong with using a crucifix to remind us of Christs death, or with kissing it. I know God is looking down at me, and I know he sees me kiss the crucifix, and Im sure he appreciates that my only desire is to show respect and love to Christ. I dont know what cruel God would punish me as an idolater just for this.

Contrary to what someone else here said, i have actually also kissed a picture of my mom when i was young and away from her and missed her. Theres nothing wrong with that either, and im not stupid enough to confuse the picture with my mom, just like i dont believe the crucifix is jesus or has magic powers.

 

Then you must admit youd be uncomfortable with worshipping in all christian churches until 16th century protestantism.

 

By whom was the new testament canon established?
The Church, the 27 books of the New Testament are not in the main disputed by any mainstream denomination, East or West. The New Testment Canon is not controversial, and it is meaningless to try a create a controversy surrounding it.